Why Trump may win again

I underestimated Donald Trump. I didn’t think he would be elected. Although I knew the figures that showed declining support for Democrats, I thought they had enough residual strength to elect a President one last time.

I thought that his election might be a blessing in disguise from the standpoint of progressives. Trump rather than Hillary Clinton would get the blame for failure to deal with the coming economic crash and ongoing quagmire wars.

I didn’t think that Trump could govern effectively because he was ignorant. I forget how progressives ridiculed Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for their supposed ignorance, and yet Reagan and Bush were transformational presidents while Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were not. Trump is on track to be a transformational president, and not in a good way.

President Trump is transforming the Supreme Court so as to reverse all the pro-labor and pro-civil liberties decisions of the past 40 or 50 years. The religious right was disappointed that Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes never advanced their goals. But I don’t think Trump will have any qualms about giving them what they want.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other top Democratic leaders are not an effective opposition. They are too wedded to pleasing their wealthy donors and to a pro-military foreign policy and pro-corporate economic policy.

Increasing numbers of Americans decline to vote in national elections. They don’t think the leaders of either the Republican or Democratic party represent them.

A certain number vote for Trump not because they expect him to keep his promises, but to “send them a message.”

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, it seemed to me that, since the Republicans had become an ideological party of the right, the Democrats would become an ideological party of the left. The result, I thought, would be a real political debate based on issues.

This didn’t happen. Instead the Democratic leaders became more pro-corporate and pro-military.

Now, nearly 40 years later, a true left-wing movement is emerging in America. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even call themselves socialists.

I see that emerging movement as Americans’ only hope because the alternatives are the status quo, which does not work for most Americans, and Donald Trump’s blood-and-soil nationalism, which also will not work.

I have a few criticisms regarding the general statements that B Clinton and Obama were not trasformational presidents. First, “transformational” is likely too strong of a word to judge a pesident. Secondy, Obama does fit in the so called category of transformational, just for the fact that he was the leader in charge that helped this country come out of the second greatest economic disaster.
P.s. I think that Trump will be a short lived aberration in usa history. For one, he has pending indictments by NY state for trump foundation illegalities. This has noting to do with Russia.

Ronald Reagan’s administration was transformative because it normalized neo-liberalism, aka Reaganomics—the idea that the key to prosperity is to free corporations and rich people from the burden of regulation and taxes, and that public services and the social safety net are a cost, not a benefit.

George W. Bush’s administration was transformative because it normalized neo-conservatism—the idea that the key to national security is the unrestrained power to wage war abroad and ignore civil liberties at home against anyone who is considered a threat. He also locked in Reagan’s neo-liberalism.

Donald Trump’s administration could be transformative if it normalizes racism, nativism and misogyny, while doubling down on neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

The difference is that there is a strong, grassroots rebellion against Trump of a kind that we didn’t see in the Reagan and Bush years.

My opinion of this is that just putting things back the way they were before Trump—or, for that matter, before Reagan—is not enough.

Reagan, Bush and Trump offered false solutions to real problems. It is up to liberals and progressives to show that they can and will do something about perpetual war and economic decline.

George w bush’s term as president cannot be regarded as transformational. He led a bad war and many policy decisions such as giving favorable tax rates for American companies locating oveseas. I suppose I equate transformational with positive not negatve consequences . The economy under b. Clinton was very good to excellent.

I don’t believe a “true left-wing movement is emerging in America,” but I do believe that “liberals and progressives … can and will do something about perpetual war and economic decline” when the political climate allows it.

We still haven’t defined “transformative,” but I suppose Reagan’s election showed that money could make a B movie actor president; Trump’s election showed that meaningful qualifications were unnecessary, and that the Constitution provides inadequate protection against rogues.